Interesting comment.
I do think that it will take some time until JSF1.2 is on our table, right.
I still think that we can implement almost everything that JSF1.2
specifies in MyFaces right away, and even pass the TCK 1.1 this way -
spec people have paid much attention to backwards
This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to support Java 1.3. At ILOG I had major issues when trying to move from RI to MyFaces as it involved a move to 1.4. Thankfully after almost six months I got approval but it was a pain. There are no moves being made because, just a Heinz
There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires Java 1.5.
However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is certainly a large issue. Some products still have to support Java
1.3.
At ILOG I had major issues
JSF 1.2 spec requires JDK 5.
From: Keith Lynch
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005
9:29 AM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: JDK 1.5, JSP 2.0 XML
This is certainly a large
issue. Some products still have to support Java 1.3.
At ILOG I had major
agreed, we can't require java 5 with 1.1 (the spec says 1.4).
TTFN,
-bd-
On Nov 4, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
There's no choice in regards to JSF 1.2. JSF 1.2 already requires
Java 1.5.
However, I'm definitely against JSF 1.1 requiring Java 1.5.
On 11/4/05, Keith Lynch
Quite frankly I don't see why JSF 1.2 spec requires it. I know they
had their reasons but I am doing just fine with JDK 1.4. I like
upgrading just as much as the next guy but 1.4 seems sufficient IMO.
sean
On 11/4/05, Bill Dudney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
agreed, we can't require java 5 with
I personally would give a f...airly low amount of interest what JSF
1.2 requires.
My revenue is generated from existing customers and not the ones from
2007 or later.
And as I said, they are mostly WebSphere-based where not even a
roadmap for the use of Java 5 exists. In another case the customer
-1 as well
On 11/2/05, Sean Schofield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
sean
On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied
-1 for Java 5.0 (for the time being.)
sean
On 11/2/05, Heinz Drews [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just want to remind that there are still a significant number of
sites which cannot move to Java 5 because of restrictions implied by
the Application Server used.
WebSphere would be here candidate
